politicalpartypoop.com

Apparently not content with the drubbing they took last week, Democrats will continue this week to offer amendments in the Senate that would put a timeline on troop withdrawal. Last week in the Senate a John Kerry amendment to withdraw the troops garnered only single-digit support. This week an amendment craftet by Jack Reed and Carl Levin to begin a phased troop withdrawal will likely attract more support from Dems.

Republicans will welcome the effort. Hugh Hewitt thinks its a good thing:

Good for them. Honesty as to the Democratic Party’s intent should it win a majority in either House is exactly what the electorate needs for November.

Congressional leaders agree. The feeling on the Hill is that this is as good a time as any to continue this debate. As Michael Barone points out, Republicans stand unified on Iraq whie the Democratic caucus is in disarray:

In the meantime, Republicans are trying to make this a comparative election between Republicans and Democrats, not just an up-or-down vote on Bush. Senate and House Republicans last week staged debates over whether to pull out of Iraq now or stay on. Democrats complained that these were meaningless debates aimed (as they said the debates on the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriages were) at dividing voters. But on these issues it is the Democrats — their officeholders and their voters — who are divided, while the Republicans, with a few exceptions, are all on one side.

The Democrats have profited politically from bad news in Iraq. Good news puts things in a different light and raises the question of just what Democrats would do if in power. For the moment, they are, as ranking House Armed Services Democrat Ike Skelton said, “absolutely” divided. That’s not a good posture from which to face the voters.

Meanwhile, The Democrats de facto leader on the Iraq issue, John Murtha, is tripping all over his own arguments. True to Democratic form, Murtha has done a 180 on his old opinion that withdrawal would be devastating and now wants all of our troops to set up camp in Okinawa, even though he can’t muster a good argument as to how a strike force so remote could have a timely impact on developments in Iraq.

UPDATE: Much more criticism of the Murtha Okinawa plan here. 

Thanks El Borak. I did know a lot of this, but I had not seen the article below. Bowers from My DD has been a paid consultant for a few years.
Joe Trippi as many already know was Dean’s campaign manager and worked closely with these folks but all were funded under the table by Soros.
Many of the top liberal bloggers are PAID, by various campaigns and the DCC.
FROM THE BLOG:  Donkey Cons

Others are finally figuring out the pay-for-play scam that Kos has been running. I figured this out in the wee hours a week ago, after learning that Markos had been a paid consultant to the Dean Machine. In an instant, I realized that Kos is the King Pimp Scammer: So that’s why the Kossacks encouraged liberals to waste their time and money on a hopeless candidacy that (a) repeatedly embarrassed the Democratic Party, (b) crashed and burned in Iowa, (c) thus helped re-elect Bush, and (d) has now taken over the DNC and wasted tens of millions of dollars for nothing.

READ THE REST OF THIS 411 HERE—————
OLD ARTICLE - BLOGGING FOR DOLLARS

Posted Friday, Jan. 14, 2005, 

Journalists think blogging makes everyone one of them, but not everyone wants to be a journalist. That’s the lesson from a long-running discussion among prominent political bloggers that into the pages of the Friday . The ’s lede: “Howard Dean’s presidential campaign hired two Internet political ‘bloggers’ as consultants so that they would say positive things about the former governor’s campaign in their online journals, according to a former high-profile Dean aide.” The “high-profile aide” is Zephyr Teachout, the former head of Internet outreach for Dean. Teachout earlier this week on the subject of “Financially Interested Blogging.” She wrote, in part, “In this past election, at least a few prominent bloggers were paid as consultants by candidates and groups they regularly blogged about.”Teachout named two prominent bloggers in particular: Jerome Armstrong of myDD.com  and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga of Daily Kos. “On Dean’s campaign, we paid Markos and Jerome Armstrong as consultants, largely in order to ensure that they said positive things about Dean. We paid them over twice as much as we paid two staffers of similar backgrounds, and they had several other clients,” Teachout wrote. “While they ended up also providing useful advice, the initial reason for our outreach was explicitly to buy their airtime. To be very clear, they never committed to supporting Dean for the payment—but it was very clearly, internally, our goal.” In the past, Teachout has also fingered Matthew Gross for writing about Erskine Bowles while Gross was on the candidate’s payroll.

FULL STORY

—–

PAST STUFF SEMI RELATED, THESE FOLKS ARE ALL FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS

——————–
Atrios of Eschaton is Revealed

Atrios - the lefty blogger at “Eschaton” that all the “progressives” love to read - is revealed.
He’s a foot-soldier in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy led by George Soros and David Brock. CBS News: “Billionaire Bankrolls Bush Bashers.” George Soros provides funds to far left organizations like Media Matters - which bashes Bush while it pays the bills for Duncan Black. Duncan Black writes as the anonymous “Atrios” at the heavily-read Bush-bashing weblog “Eschaton.” Via JustOneMinute:
- - - - - - -
Who Is Duncan Black?

It turns out that Mr. Black works at Media Matters, the new David Brock media watchdog group, which is kind of interesting - he is doing paid media commentary on one site, and a lot of anonymous media criticism on the otherAnd from Instapundit:
- - - - - - -
Atrios has been unmasked as a guy named Duncan Black who, among other things, works for David Brock’s Soros-funded Media Matters operation. Nothing wrong with that, but if I were working for, say, Richard Mellon Scaife, I think somebody — like, say, Duncan Black — would be making something of it.
- - - - - - -
As CBS News has reported, Media Matters is just one of the hard-left organizations funded by billionaire leftist George Soros.
George Soros provides funds to far left organizations like Media Matters - which bashes Bush while it pays the bills for Duncan Black. Duncan Black writes as the anonymous “Atrios” at the heavily-read Bush-bashing weblog “Eschaton.”

Geroge Soros has funded other hard-left organizations like MoveOn.org - to which he gave $2.5 million.

Makes ya want to go hmmmmmmm 

Lulwa Shalhoub, Arab News
 
JEDDAH, 20 June 2006 — The Ministry of Higher Education and the General Authority of Civil Aviation are offering scholarships to Saudi men and women to study various majors related to civil aviation in the United States.

The forms are available online at the ministry’s website until July 12 for both bachelor’s and post-graduate studies. Nominations will be announced on July 31. Interviews will take place in August and final scholarship winners will be announced on Sept. 2.

READ THE REST OF THIS

THEY COMMUNICATED, BUT DID HE LISTEN?

By Sarah Larkins
CNSNews.com Correspondent
June 21, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush received another blunt reminder this week about the dissension within his own party over the issue of illegal immigration.

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett and former U.S. Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork joined with 38 other conservative leaders in urging Bush and the current Republican leadership in Congress to enforce the U.S. southern border before reforming the immigration system.

A letter, signed by the conservative leaders and addressed to the president, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) states that “border and interior enforcement must be funded, operational, implemented, and proven successful” before the debate can shift to current illegal immigrants and the need for new guest worker programs.

“We need proof that enforcement (both at the border and in the interior) is successful before anything else happens,” the letter declares.

“The debate is among Republicans,” John Fonte, senior fellow and director of the Center of American Common Culture at the Hudson Institute and organizer of the letter, told Cybercast News Service. “The White House is on one side, 85 percent of congressional Republicans are on the other.”

Some Democrats, 36 in the House and four in the Senate, also support enforcement first, Fonte said.

“[The letter’s] purpose is to strengthen the hand of the people who are interested in the enforcement of America’s borders first,” Fonte said. “Do the enforcement; let’s see if that works, then we’ll talk about the other stuff.”

The letter from the conservative leaders also labels the 1986 immigration reform law a “mistake.”

That series of reforms, according to the letter, “included amnesty for around 3 million illegal immigrants, border enforcement and interior enforcement.”

“Amnesty came, but enforcement was never seriously implemented either at the border or in the interior,” the conservative leaders state in their letter.

“[Enforcement] didn’t happen,” Fonte said. “We don’t want to be fooled again. This time we’re saying, trust, but verify. Let’s see enforcement. Let’s make sure it’s proven and then we’ll discuss the other stuff.”

In May, the Senate passed the Hagel-Martinez immigration reform bill, which would establish a temporary guest-worker program and grant permanent resident status for qualifying immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for five years. The House passed a tougher version of immigration reform in 2005. That bill would make illegal presence in the U.S. a crime and subject those who harbor illegal aliens to a criminal penalty as well.

As Cybercast News Service previously reported, Speaker Hastert argued in March that border protection should be the first priority in handling the illegal immigration problem, but that a guest-worker program was also needed for some sectors of the U.S. economy.

Frist shares Hastert’s view.

“Senator Frist believes that border security is the most important piece of immigration reform, and has said that continuously,” Carolyn Weyforth, spokesperson for Frist, told Cybercast News Service in an e-mail response. “However, he does think that we need comprehensive reform in order to effectively deal with border security, employer enforcement and the 12 million illegal immigrants in our country.”

Fonte said the letter should strengthen an issue that affects all Americans.

“This is about strengthening America, it’s about border enforcement, it’s about protecting America, so all Americans should be interested,” Fonte said.

Politics, 9/11 Cited in Lax Enforcement

By Spencer S. Hsu and Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writers
The Bush Administration, which is vowing to crack down on U.S. companies that hire illegal workers, virtually abandoned such employer sanctions before it began pushing to overhaul U.S. immigration laws last year, government statistics show.

Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which subsequently was merged into the Homeland Security Department. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from 182 in 1999 to four in 2003, and fines collected declined from $3.6 million to $212,000, according to federal statistics.

 The Immigration Debate
 The Washington Post’s coverage of the immigration issue, from the politics of revising the nation’s immigration laws to the impact of illegal immigration on the U.S.-Mexico border and the Washington region.
 
In 1999, the United States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it issued fine notices to three.

The government’s steady retreat from workplace enforcement in the 20 years since it became illegal to hire undocumented workers is the result of fierce political pressure from business lobbies, immigrant rights groups and members of Congress, according to law enforcement veterans. Punishing employers also was de-emphasized as the government recognized that it lacks the tools to do the job well, and as the Department of Homeland Security shifted resources to combat terrorism.

READ FULL STORY

SHEEHAN FOLLOWS BUSH TO VIENNA…

Where in the hell does she get the money to go all over the world selling out her country?

Jackson looks like he ate a bad bunch of chitlins.

Dan Rather Signs Off

Let’s review some of his biased liberal crap! 

 
In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.
In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue on Keith Olbermann’s “Countdown,” Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.
Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose “Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, “The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific “consensus” on global warming “one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people.” For speaking the truth he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE

Associated Press

HAZLETON, Pa. - With tensions rising and its police department and municipal budget stretched thin, this small northeastern Pennsylvania city is about to begin what the mayor calls one of the toughest crackdowns on illegal immigrants anywhere in the United States.
“Illegal immigrants are destroying the city,” said Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican. “I don’t want them here, period.”

Last week Barletta introduced, and the City Council tentatively approved, a measure that would revoke the business licenses of companies that employ illegal immigrants; impose $1,000 fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants; and make English the official language of the city.

Barletta said he had no choice but to act after two illegal immigrants from the Dominican Republic were charged last month with shooting and killing a 29-year-old man. Other recent incidents involving illegal immigrants have rattled this former coal town 80 miles northwest of Philadelphia, including the arrest of a 14-year-old boy for firing a gun at a playground.

“This is crazy,” said Barletta, who took office in 2000. “People are afraid to walk the streets. There’s going to be law and order back in Hazleton and I’m going to use every tool I possibly can.”

Municipal officials around the nation, frustrated at what they perceive as the federal government’s inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration, have increasingly taken matters into their own hands.

In San Bernardino, Calif., voters will decide whether to adopt a measure nearly identical to the one in Hazleton. An Idaho county filed a racketeering lawsuit against agricultural companies accused of hiring illegal immigrants. In New Hampshire, a pair of police chiefs began arresting illegal immigrants for trespassing.

“They’re being forced to pick up the financial tab for all of this nonsense and they are doing whatever they can to find ways to combat it at the local level,” said Susan Tully, national field director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates limits on immigration. “This is a fine example of what I’m talking about.”

But Flavia Jimenez, an immigrant policy analyst at the National Council of La Raza, said local authorities typically are not equipped to enforce immigration laws. She predicted the Hazleton crackdown would prompt a civil rights lawsuit.

“Landlords are going to shut their doors to anyone who may look or sound Latino,” she said. “On the other hand, landlords may attempt to actually determine whether a person is undocumented or not, and make multiple mistakes because of the complexity of immigration law.”

When Barletta took office in 2000, Hispanics represented only about 5 percent of the city’s population of 23,000. The population has since shot up to 31,000, with Hispanics now comprising 30 percent, lured to Hazleton by cheap housing, a lower cost of living and jobs in nearby plants, factories and farms.

City officials don’t know how many of the new arrivals are in the United States illegally, but say they are fueling the drug trade, joining gangs and committing other crimes.

Whites seem to overwhelmingly favor the proposed crackdown. Barletta’s office has been flooded with hundreds of approving e-mails and phone calls - from as far as California and Florida - and he got an impromptu standing ovation when he walked into a Hazleton diner for lunch.

“It’s about time,” said Francis X. Tucci, 57, who was born and raised in Hazleton and owns a hair salon in the heart of the Hispanic business district whose window is adorned with tiny American flags. “We were a nice community. You find bad everywhere, I understand that, but we’re talking about here and now.”

Hispanics, meanwhile, are split on the measure. Some approve, saying they are fed up with crime and graffiti. “If I was mayor, I wouldn’t let anyone in who had a criminal record,” said Rafael Rovira, 69, a naturalized American citizen from the Dominican Republic.

Others view the proposal as punitive and unnecessary, saying that most illegal immigrants obey the law and only want to work. They point to the success of Wyoming Street, a colorful thoroughfare where dozens of businesses have opened in the past few years.

“It’s going to scare a lot of people,” said Christian Lechuga, 23, who emigrated from Mexico eight years ago.

His father came to the United States illegally in 1982, received amnesty in 1986 and now operates a grocery store and restaurant in Hazleton. Jose Lechuga, 42, said Barletta is “abusing his authority and abusing human rights.”

“He’s confusing illegal people with criminals,” Jose Lechuga said.

The City Council, which approved the measure by a 4-1 vote, must vote on it twice more before it can become law. The next vote is scheduled for mid-July.

The Internet is the newest and most free medium of communication, which can be used to check both government and the mainstream media. This means, of course, that the government is already looking to regulate it. If certain legislators have their way, the end of free blogging on the Internet will come sooner rather than later.

Many people know the old adage, “It’s too good to be true.” Well, the Internet is most likely soon to fall victim to the adage, “It’s too good to be free.” Not that this should be surprising in any way. As communications and entertainment industries emerge and gain power, regulation of some type is all but inevitable. Self-regulation restricts the movie industry (via the Motion Picture Association of America) and print media (via promises of “objectivity”) – the latter falling in contrast with the original theory of print in the United States.

Read Full Entry by John Ostrowski

Attack of the Bloggers
by Nathan Tabor

Sniffer: Despite strong opposition of liberal bloggers, I do admire the work and dedication. Since the Yearly KOS liberal blogs have taken some hits and have been chastised for voicing their opposition of the current administration. This is what free speech is all about.
I don’t like the analogy of “joe six pack” blogger, because I’m a Crown and Makers drinker myself. LOL!
 I do believe bloggers make up a slightly more informed and dedicated group regardless of the political leanings and this is a good thing. 
I hope blogging continues to be an instrumental force in future elections.
I do agree that the Democratic Party is slowly allowing its agenda to be guided by far left wing bloggers. This will not help them in November nor the presidential elections in 08.
My observations from Yearly KOS was I did see a motivated group of individuals eager to change the current political landscape. However these people were not focused.
The only things those folks could all agree on was that they all hated G Dub.
Everybody was carrying their own flag for their own cause.
Nobody could tell you for certain what are the major issues that the Democrats need to address to take back control of congress? Iraq? Health Care? Gay Rights? Immigration?
The Environment? Education? Everyone in attendance had their own ideas on what topic should be a priority. This is the constant problem with the left.
Until they figure out that quandary no amount of blogger influence is going to help. 

THE ARTICLE—————–
There was a time in America when the most effective way for the average Joe to make his voice heard in the political process was in the confines of the voting booth.  Once in a while—if he were lucky—he might even get a letter to the editor published in the local newspaper.  But, other than that, it was unlikely that politicians would pay much attention to what he had to say—especially if he lived somewhere between the liberal Coasts—the great American fly-over zone.

But the Internet has changed everything.  Joe Six-Pack can now hook up his computer and his DSL account and blog away his nights.  And the entire world can see his thoughts and e-mail comments back to him. 

As a result, political nobodies from nowhere are now emerging on the national Cyberspace stage, opining on everything from the war in Iraq to, well, the strength of other blogs. 

Blogs represent the voice of the people—often against the most powerful elements in our society—so they do represent a kind of high-tech democracy in action.

Some political pundits now say the readership for some of the more popular blogs can rival the hits received on major newspaper websites.  Still, I have to wonder, why do media commentators devote so much attention to radically left-wing blogs—especially when these blogs hardly represent the views of SUV-driving, church-going, baseball-loving moms and dads?

We hear, for instance, that incessant Democratic bloggers are trying hard to move their party further to the left, championing Russ Feingold for President.  While Hillary and company seem to be promoting a big tent approach, soft-pedaling their appalling support for abortion on demand and other traditionally liberal issues, here are the diehard bloggers, trying to take the tent and move it to Berkeley. 

The fact of the matter is that Democrats simply cannot control their left flank for very long—hence the ascendancy of the conservative movement.  No matter how much the Democratic Party chieftains claim that abortion is a tragic choice…no matter how much they talk about personal responsibility and getting able-bodied men and women off the public dole…their liberal colors eventually show. 

This is why, despite claims that the Democrats are going to enjoy an electoral blow-out this fall, it would be wrong to count the party of Reagan out.  While the Democrats can attempt to capitalize on a wave of voter discontent for this election cycle, an initial infatuation with the Dems will pass quickly, once voters realize that this is still the same party that brought us sky-high interest rates, federal binge spending, the replacement of prayer in school with the gospel of gay pride, and endless womanizing in the Oval Office. 

In fact, twenty years down the line, I wouldn’t be surprised if our much-maligned President George W. Bush is regarded as one of our finest Presidents.  Why?  Because—when we faced an unprecedented attack on domestic soil on 9/11, the President responded with courage, strength and, yes, even restraint.  He showed himself to be a voice of reason in an age dominated by those who would rather cow-tow to international thugs than to offend the ACLU. 

In short, George W. showed himself to be a true leader—something the Democratic Party is still trying to find.

So, let the left-wing bloggers “attack” the Democratic Party bigwigs all they want.  I have full faith that the American people will be able to recognize what the party really stands for—values that are way out of line from what the typical patriotic American holds dear. 

In other words, the Democrats are blogging their way to eventual defeat.

This is so fucken stupid. I’m so sick of these parents crying foul because their teenage daughters want to engage in idiotic behavior. Like that crazy idiot girl who went to Jordan to meet some freak.
How fucken out to lunch were her parents to not question why their daughter was wanting a Passport!?
Every damm day you hear about these teen GIRLS meeting perverts online and they want to blame every fucken body EXCEPT for themselves for being out to lunch.
Note to parents, toss your goddamm computers in the fucken trash if you are so concerned. 

THE STORY———— 

Suit filed in Travis County claims popular Internet site fails to protect children from adult sexual predators.
By Claire Osborn - AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
A 14-year-old Travis County girl who said she was sexually assaulted by a Buda man she met on MySpace.com sued the popular social networking site Monday for $30 million, claiming that it fails to protect minors from adult sexual predators.

The lawsuit claims that the Web site does not require users to verify their age and calls the security measures aimed at preventing strangers from contacting users younger than 16 “utterly ineffective.”

“MySpace is more concerned about making money than protecting children online,” said Adam Loewy, who is representing the girl and her mother in the lawsuit against MySpace, parent company News Corp. and Pete Solis, the 19-year-old accused of sexually assaulting the girl.

Hemanshu Nigam, the chief security officer for MySpace.com, said in a written statement: “We take aggressive measures to protect our members. We encourage everyone on the Internet to engage in smart web practices and have open family dialogue about how to apply offline lessons in the online world.”

Founded in 2003, MySpace has more than 80 million registered users worldwide and is the world’s third most-viewed Web site, according to the lawsuit.

Loewy said the lawsuit is the first of its kind in the nation against MySpace.

Solis contacted the girl through her MySpace Web site in April, telling her that he was a high school senior who played on the football team, according to the lawsuit.

In May, after a series of e-mails and phone calls, he picked her up at school, took her out to eat and to a movie, then drove her to an apartment complex parking lot in South Austin, where he sexually assaulted her, police said. He was arrested May 19.

The lawsuit includes news reports of other assault cases in which girls were contacted through MySpace. They include a 22-year-old Wisconsin man charged with six counts of sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl and a 27-year-old Connecticut man accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl.

MySpace says on a “Tips for Parents” page that users must be 14 or older. The Web site does nothing to verify the age of the user, such as requiring a driver’s license or credit card number, Loewy said.

To create an account, a MySpace user must list a name, an e-mail address, sex, country and date of birth.

“None of this has to be true,” the lawsuit said.

Attorneys general from five states, including Texas, have asked MySpace.com to provide more security, the lawsuit said. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sent a letter to the MySpace.com chief executive officer May 22, asking him to require users to verify their age and identity with a credit card or verified e-mail account.

Lauren Gelman, associate director of the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School, said she does not think MySpace is legally responsible for what happens away from its site.

“If you interact on MySpace, you are safe, but if a 13-year-old or 14-year-old goes out in person and meets someone she doesn’t know, that is always an unsafe endeavor,” Gelman said. “We need to teach our kids to be wary of strangers.”

Loewy said he was confident about the lawsuit, which he said seeks damages worth 1 percent of the company’s estimated worth.

“We feel that 1 percent of that is the bare minimum that they should compensate the girl for their failure to protect her online when they knew sexual predators were on that site,” he said.

Sen. Hillary Clinton has thrown her support behind “Network Neutrality” regulations that conservatives say mark the first major attempt by the federal government to regulate the Internet.
In a mass e-mail to supporters, Clinton writes: “I want to tell you a little bit about Net Neutrality, why I believe it’s so important to our democracy, and what you can do to help.”
In the Net Neutrality debate, cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service, including AT&T and Verizon, are pitted against major Internet players like Google and Amazon and large-scale users, like the left-wing MoveOn.org.
The Internet providers are lobbying to create a two-tiered Internet in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority, including faster loading.
Users like MoveOn – and Clinton – support Net Neutrality legislation that would require all Web sites to continue to be treated equally.
But a group of 24 conservative organizations has formed the Internet Freedom Coalition (IFC) to oppose the legislation, warning that it would open the door to U.S. government regulation of the Internet, allowing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to use this issue to sink its claws into the currently unfettered Internet.
Clinton, however, is firmly behind the move.
In her e-mail, she acknowledges: “Today, the Internet is an open marketplace of ideas where anyone can join in . . . New technology is giving a wide variety of citizens the voice to speak out . . . But after lauding the openness and independence of the Internet, Clinton goes on to call for government interference, writing: “I’ve become an original co-sponsor of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, which would prevent Internet service providers from blocking, degrading, or giving a lower priority service on their networks.”
Clinton asks e-mail recipients to sign on as a “citizen co-sponsor” of the Act – and provides a link to a site soliciting contributions to her Senate campaign.
The Net Neutrality issue has made for strange bedfellows. Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton, is now co-chair of the group Hands Off the Internet, which opposes the legislation Hillary supports.
He said: “Hypothetical problems are no justification for giving the FCC and other government regulators the power to decide how the Internet will evolve.”
And IFC co-director Jason Wright has warned: “Network Neutrality is the first giant leap toward government regulation of the Internet.”

What is Network neutrality

Dems Rip Net Neutrality Compromise

Broadband ‘Net Neutrality’ in Question
Free speech, high finance at issue

I was going to post something about S.D. Voters to Decide Fate of Abortion Ban… ,   however I decided to post a previous rant of mine on the issue from a Negro perspective.

The abortion issue is way down on my list of political priorities. Let me be clear I don’t think Roe v Wade should ever be overturned. But more than that I don’t think men should even be allowed to even debate the issue. But we all know that is impossible. My issue against abortions has always been the racist nature of abortions, something liberals refuse to address.
Folks on the left refuse to study their history regarding the practice.

Lets review;
Abortion mostly targets poor people, Negros, and Hispanics. Anybody paying attention already knows that.
A research group affiliated with Planned Parenthood of America, indicated that those three demographic groups represent 57%, 36%, and 25% respectively of all abortions in the U.S. With blacks making up 12.7% of the U.S. population, that group has a disproportionately greater number of abortions when compared to other racial group categories in America.
Read about the founder of Planned Parenthood of America, Margaret Sanger
Sanger died in 1966, but she has a number of documented statements and positions on record pertaining to family, race, and population control.
In 1939 Sanger and Clarence Gamble made an infamous proposal called ‘Birth Control and the Negro,’ which asserted that ‘the poorer areas, particularly the South, are producing alarmingly more than their share of future generations.’ Her ‘religion of birth control’ would, she wrote, ‘ease the financial load of caring for, with public funds, children destined to become a burden to themselves, to their family, and ultimately to the nation.’”
In 1934 Sanger published her Code to Stop Overproduction of Children, in which she said that “no woman shall have the legal right to bear a child without a permit, no permit shall be valid for more than one child.”
It is widely known that Sanger associated with followers of the Marxist, Vladimir Lenin, and with advocates of national socialism and eugenics. Again, refer to the post. The latter being “the science that deals with the improvement of hereditary qualities of a race (by the control of human mating)” . Malthusian eugenics played a big part in Nazi Germany’s promotion of ‘a master Aryan race.’
The Legacy of Planned Parenthood, author George Grant claims Sanger “was thoroughly convinced that ‘inferior races’ were in fact ‘human weeds’ and a ‘menace to civilization.’Sanger had come to regard organized charity to ethnic minorities and the poor as a ‘symptom of a malignant social disease’ because it encouraged the influence of ‘defectives, delinquents, and dependents.’”
Leninists and eugenicists at the time viewed “religious” people with much disdain and consternation because they saw the church as a threat. basically because it was proven that when Negros turn from God, the Bible and the church, they find themselves frequently in abortion clinics.
Planned Parenthood of course disputes the “racist” accusations involving Sanger as false, stating that her quotes are taken out of context. Just do Google University research on her and see for yourself.
What are the facts:
Three out of five pregnant Negro women will abort their child.
An estimated 1,452 Negro children are killed each day by abortions.
Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were lynched in the United States, a number surpassed in less than three days by abortion.
Approximately one-third of all abortions are performed on Negro women.
With so much money at stake, it appears that the beneficiaries of the abortion industry go out of their way to defend individuals such as Margaret Sanger.

Cleveland’s leading newspaper has checked out a new article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claiming that Republicans “stole” the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, and concluded that Kennedy’s story is “nonsense.”
In the June 15 issue of Rolling Stone, under the headline “Was the 2004 Election Stolen?” Kennedy writes: “A review of the available data reveals that in Ohio alone, at least 357,000 voters, the overwhelming majority of them Democratic, were prevented from casting ballots or did not have their votes counted in 2004 — more than enough to shift the results of an election decided by 118,601 votes.”
But the Cleveland Plain Dealer – regarded as anything but a conservative newspaper – headlines a June 18 article: “Rest assured, we checked out Election 2004 thoroughly,” and states: “There was no shortage of mistakes made in vote counting. There were voters who should have been registered but weren’t, polling places with lines that were too long and without enough voting machines, and decisions from [Secretary of State Ken] Blackwell that appeared to be partisan.
“All these mistakes and misjudgments took votes from both candidates, but probably more from Kerry. But they didn’t add up to nearly enough votes to swing Ohio from Bush to Kerry. “The mistakes were … bipartisan in nature and not a result of Republican chicanery.”
The Plain Dealer article by Ted Diadiun points to several instances when Kennedy “ignored” the facts, including:
“In his online footnotes, Kennedy refers no less than a half-dozen times to a five-month-long post-election investigation commissioned by the Democratic National Committee called ‘Democracy at Risk.’
“Somehow he never gets around to quoting the DNC investigative team’s conclusion that ‘The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systemically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush.”
The newspaper also notes: “Kennedy saw conspiracy in a Franklin County foul-up that resulted in far too few voting machines at a polling place in a heavily black area that would presumably vote mainly for Kerry.
“But he didn’t tell his readers that the chairman of the Franklin County elections board, who oversaw the county’s voting machine allocation, was a black man who also chairs the county Democratic Party. Not a likely candidate to steal votes for Bush.”
Plain Dealer Metro Editor Jean Dubail said this about the Kennedy article: “My first reaction after reading the thing was how little actual news there was in it.”
Carl Weiser, government and public affairs editor for the Cincinnati Enquirer, expressed similar sentiments: “I read it and nothing in there was really new. The folks who know Ohio elections best checked into it and found there was no conspiracy.”
And a story by Farhad Manjoo on the Web site Salon.com – another news source that’s far from conservative – states: “If you do read Kennedy’s article, be prepared to machete your way through numerous errors of interpretations and his deliberate omission of key bits of data.”
The Plain Dealer concludes: “The less somebody knows about the 2004 Ohio election and the father away from Ohio he is, the more likely he is to find merit in that Rolling Stone piece. And since our audience is right here in Northeast Ohio, I’m sure that most of you have already figured out that it’s nonsense.”

by Amanda B. Carpenter

Democrats on Capitol Hill last week could not defend remarks by Rep. John Murtha (D.-Pa.), their party’s leading advocate of withdrawing from Iraq, who claimed on CNN that the operation that resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi could have been carried out without U.S. troops on the ground.
The U.S. military action involved far more than merely bombing Zarqawi’s hideout.
On June 8, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell first described the operation in a nationally televised briefing. “What everybody needs to understand is the strike last night did not occur in a 24-hour period,” said Gen. Caldwell. “It truly was a very long, painstaking, deliberate exploitation of intelligence, information gathering, human sources, electronic signal intelligence that was done over … many, many weeks, that led us last night to that target.”
“Immediately after killing Zarqawi,” Caldwell said, “we then conducted 17 simultaneous raids within Baghdad proper and just on the outskirts.” Those raids led to a “treasure trove” of intelligence that is “presently being exploited and utilized for further use.”
That night on CNN, Murtha told anchor John Roberts: “Now, this could have happened from the outside. People say, you see, we stayed in there. No, this was from the air, two bombs were dropped. So there’s no question — from an F-16. So there’s no question about this, it could have happened from outside.’

READ MORE

Ah this crazy bitch is back in the news. I kinda missed her. She is back just in time to be tied to the liberal Democrat machine wh is seeking a takeover in Congress.
Yup Ms. Sheehan take your position right next to Murtha, Pelosi, Reid, Dean and the rest of the anti-American left.

THE STORY…

FORT ERIE, Ontario — A group of American military deserters publicly embraced their new lives in Canada on Saturday with the support of “peace mom” Cindy Sheehan, who said she wished the son she lost in Iraq was among them.
“I begged him not to go to Iraq,” the anti-war activist said through tears at a rally in support of the former soldiers, who wore black T-shirts emblazoned with “AWOL.” “And I wish he was standing up here with these people because he didn’t want to go.”
Sheehan was making her second visit to Canada in support of sanctuary for those fleeing the U.S. military. The Canadian government has so far denied political asylum to U.S. soldiers who have sought it but appeals are pending.
“They’re trying to deport me,” said Darrell Anderson of Lexington, Ky., who arrived in Canada by way of Niagara Falls in January 2005. He spent seven months in Iraq with the Army’s 1st Armored Division and received a purple heart following a roadside bomb attack before deciding during a leave he would not go back.
“When I was in Iraq, we were killing innocent people for oil. It was obvious they didn’t want us there,” said Anderson, 24, who is petitioning to remain in Canada.
The gathering at a park in the town of Fort Erie, across the border from Buffalo, N.Y., was organized by peace groups on both sides of the border.
About 20 former U.S. soldiers, referred to as war resisters, have applied for refugee status in Canada. Organizers estimated there may be as many as 200 soldiers in the country who have not yet sought formal protection.
“They say we’re traitors, we’re deserters,” said former Marine Chris Magaoay, 20, of the Hawaiian island of Maui. “No, I’m a Marine and I stand up for what I believe in, and I believe the Constitution of the United States of America is being pushed aside as a scrap piece of paper.”
The soldiers thanked Canadians for their hospitality and were cheered by about 100 in an audience that included Iraq veterans opposed to the war and Vietnam-era resisters who sought refuge in Canada decades earlier.
“I know that their choice has been difficult but I know that they made the right choice,” said Bruce Beyer, who spent five years in Canada as a draft resister during Vietnam.
“I know that they miss their family and their friends that they’re cut off from,” Beyer said. “But I know that you Canadians have stepped up and stood behind them and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.”
Sheehan, who energized the anti-war movement last summer with her monthlong protest outside President Bush’s Texas ranch, said she has spent time with many of the resisters.
“They’re moral human beings who don’t want to go to Iraq and kill innocent people to line the pockets of George Bush and the war machine,” she said.

 One of my gifts for attending Yearly KOS was a book called “50 Simple Things You Can Do To Fight the Right”. As the Progressives move about the country “educating” voters on this progressive agenda they are actually having workshops to TEACH people how to counter conservative or Right leaning thought.
Some of this material is out of this book published by “Earth Works Action.”
More evidence that liberals……er uh….Progressives want to save you from your own stupidity. Again folks this ultra elitism concentrates on the fact that of you don’t agree with liberal doctrine, you are stupid, you have been brainwashed, and you are an idiot.
Folks just follow the money trail. Point number one in this book (50 Things), they tell you to switch to a long distance carrier that donates a portion it its proceeds to “progressive” causes. The company “Working Assets” says that with every bill they send out action alerts highlighting important (liberal) progressive political issues and free calls to elected representatives.
Go ahead libs, keep focusing on the glossy external issues and ignore true ideals.
All of the books, all the workshops, all the retooling and reinventing won’t get your kind elected.

Five questions that rock the conservative world
Posted by LeftHander in General Discussion - Democrat Underground
Fri Jun 16th 2006, 04:03 PM
After they consider them, they will think differently about the world and you will learn more about people and maybe even make a new friend.

ASSUMPTIONS TO WORK FROM

Keep in mind that the following are assumptions that are characteristic of the majority of conservatives.(At least the ones I know, avoid discussing these with them directly as it tends to piss people off)

Conservatives think they can make a moral argument for war.
Conservatives think they have the right to lead because they believe liberals are dangerous and wishy washy.
Conservatives live in the present and are mostly concerned about short term results and rewards.
Conservatives are self centered, but many still retain a belief that there is good in the world.

Using those assumptions I can make conservatives think beyond the point of view that they live in now and show that the actions we take now have a profound effect on generations to come. They will come to understand something about liberals and progressives that I feel has not been successfully articulated in this divided political climate.

I can do it…AND YOU CAN DO IT TOO. Here is how. Some guidlines. Some call it FRAMING the debate.

LETS TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE

It is not about who is right or who is wrong. It is about finding something we all can agree on.

To successfully control the debate with conservatives you have to take focus away from immediate current events and get them to think two or three generations out. Don’t say years because that means nothing to people and is abstract. Most people really do not really grasp 150 years as a comprehensible chunk of time. Phrase it in terms of future generations.

DO not let them drag you into a debate about contemporary issues. Tell them that we can go on and on about those things some other time and lets simply refrain from going down that road and stick to a nice discussion about the future…

SAY: I want to talk about the future specifically the future of our children and their children.

SAY: I am going to present some facts and then ask some questions and I really want to know what you think about them.

(That shuts up the talking points, because Conservatives don’t typically talk about the future in relation to future generations…they only do so in abstract terms like “freedom” and “democracy” and preserving a way of life without giving any real concrete examples of that.)

FIND AGREEMENT - Some FACTs to use.

First give them these facts and they should have no problem agreeing with them in the above context. Feel free to listen to them and allow discussion as you do. Keep them on message firmly and do let them sway the conversation to contemporary politics or events. Keep them focused on a time frame of two to three GENERATIONS.

The FACTS about the future:

Oil supplies are finite.

We will learn to live with less as the world’s resources dwindle.

We will learn to use renewable energy sources.

Our military will ensure it’s supply of oil first.

All conservatives I talk to can ultimately learn to accept these simple facts, usually with surprising discussion and some debate. That alone is an amazing thing to share with someone who you asusmed you had noithing in common with. ONe person said oil would never run out. We will alwyas have oil. I said “WE?” just who is “WE?”? Eventually I asked do you actually believe that ordinary people will be able to purchase petroleum based products in the future and discard them in a landfill? He agreed oil is finite resource.

From there I ask these questions:

Remember to LISTEN!

THE FIVE QUESTIONS - LISTEN TO THEIR ANSWERS and ask for more detail.

1. What do you think it is going to take to move from a oil based consumer culture to a renewable energy based one?

2. Do you honestly believe that continued war in the Middle East going to move us forward to that goal? Explain.

3. Do you think our current consumer based culture is a path to energy independance? Explain. (this is very interesting and can go yes or no I have found.)

4. What tools will you give your children and their children to enable them to live and survive in a world that is running out of oil?

5. Do you think it is important to teach children about peace and love?

(This is the hard one…eyes will roll but be firm and ask for an honest answer…it will almost always be accompanied by a big “BUT” we need to BE STRONG, with weapons, gun etc…comeback and say but that is not what I am asking you about I am tallking about peace and love, we all no about national security and the threat of terror but I am talking about peace and love…not violence. YOu will get a look to the floor and a…”yeah of course it is…BUT…” Stop them and ask them to think about why it is important to teach children about peace and love…I sometimes leave it there…with them speechless or rambling on about bombs, and revenge…for 911)

After you discuss these questions with conservatives one of two things happen.

Either the person is insane and says I don’t care cause I will be dead and I want what I can take. (I stop there and tell this person they get all they deserve out of life and call them selfish, not many are really this bad)

–OR—

Most agree and you find varied levels of consensus. They find that there is something needed but are not sure exactly what that means. At that point for the majority of conservatives they are confused and are being assaulted with something they probably have never thought about….which is something besides themselves and their current existence.

Can you believe the galling arrogance of these people!?   

At that point you have rocked their world. You have shown yourself to be a kind decent person and they have seen that indeed there is much we all share in common. Make sure you acknowledge that and thank them for talking with you.

That is how to win the hearts and minds of others…by using your heart and your mind.

Note: Sure I vent and get mad. But for the most part when talking politics with conservatives I take this tack and I find that it does change the way people think.

Try it out on yourself. Ask yourself those questions and then ask your favorite conservative co-worker, friend or pub regular.

Have fun with it. And let me know how it worked for you.

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 4, 2006; Page A25

Washington Post

John Kenneth Galbraith, the Harvard economist who died last week in his 98th year, has been justly celebrated for his wit, fluency, public-spiritedness and public service, which extended from New Deal Washington to India, where he served as U.S. ambassador. Like two Harvard colleagues — historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and Sen. Pat Moynihan, another ambassador to India — Galbraith was among liberalism’s leading public intellectuals, yet he was a friend and skiing partner of William F. Buckley. After one slalom down a Swiss mountain, inelegantly executed by the 6-foot-8-inch Galbraith, Buckley asked how long Galbraith had been skiing. Thirty years, Galbraith said. Buckley mischievously replied: About as long as you have been an economist.

Galbraith was an adviser to presidents (John Kennedy, a former student, and Lyndon Johnson) and presidential aspirants (Adlai Stevenson and Eugene McCarthy). His book “The Affluent Society,” published in 1958, was a milestone in liberalism’s transformation into a doctrine of condescension. And into a minority persuasion.
 
In the 1950s liberals were disconsolate. Voters twice rejected the intelligentsia’s pinup, Stevenson, in favor of Dwight Eisenhower, who elicited a new strain in liberalism — disdain for average Americans. Liberals dismissed the Eisenhower administration as “the bland leading the bland.” They said New Dealers had been supplanted by car dealers. How to explain the electorate’s dereliction of taste? Easy. The masses, in their bovine simplicity, had been manipulated, mostly by advertising, particularly on television, which by 1958 had become the masses’ entertainment.

Intellectuals, that herd of independent minds, were, as usual, in lock step as they deplored “conformity.” Fear of that had begun when the decade did, with David Riesman’s “The Lonely Crowd” (1950), which was followed by C. Wright Mills’s “White Collar” (1951), Sloan Wilson’s novel “The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit” (1955), William Whyte’s “The Organization Man” (1956) and Vance Packard’s “The Hidden Persuaders” (1957).

Galbraith brought to the anti-conformity chorus a special verve in depicting Americans as pathetic, passive lumps, as manipulable as clay. Americans were what modern liberalism relishes — victims , to be treated as wards of a government run by liberals. It never seemed to occur to Galbraith and like-minded liberals that ordinary Americans might resent that depiction and might express their resentment with their votes.

(more…)

whoop4467@aol.com said…

To Sniffer- Since you like to change the subject of the post to your rant and rave against Democrats, I would like to ask you a question. It is a FACT that over 59,000,000 (legitimate, bought or stolen) voted for Bush in 2004. Since the Iraq War was a part of the issues for 2004, those votes meant that whoever voted for Bush were saying they supported the War in Iraq. The other issue raised by Repuks in 2004 was patriotism. Also it was quite evident in 2004 that the military needed many new enlistees to bolster the manpower supply so there would be plenty of replacements for the tired soldiers. My question is: if the repuks were so supportive of the war and such patriots, then why did so few of the 59,000,000 not enlist to give aid to a cause they so boastfully supported?

 Just think, if only a measly 1% of the 59,000,000 were to enlist that would be over 590,000 new recruits(This is not opinion but FACT).

Now, please tell me in words that I may understand how I am to believe the Repuks really support this war and are more patriotic than Democrats. I lump many Repuks in the same animal sub-species that Ann C belongs to. They are blowhards who shout from the mountain tops about their bravery and their patriotism to hide the fact they want no part of a war except the part of doing everthing they can to get the US into one. Repuks are like many animls that puff themselves up, cause their fur or hair to stand up to look bigger and meaner, make their eyes bug out, make screaming noises and other weird behaviors to hide their fear(this is fact proven by above data). You can question my bravery, but you should know that I served in the Army from Jan 1969 - Jan 1971 when many others were doing all they could to avoid any real military service (like guard duty, leaving the country, or buying their way out of service).

 
By Mona Charen

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/ | The story was everywhere and was everywhere the same.
On June 9, Israel had fired a rocket onto a Gaza beach killing seven picnicking Palestinian civilians. The New York Times carried a huge, front-page picture of a 12-year-old girl weeping as she searched for her father’s body in the sand (the photo was excerpted from video that has been broadcast around the world). CBS News reported, “The ruling Hamas group fired a barrage of homemade rockets at Israel on Saturday, hours after calling off a truce with Israel in anger over an artillery attack that killed seven civilians in Gaza.” The New York Times characterized it this way: “Hamas fired at least 15 Qassam rockets from Gaza into Israel on Saturday, ending a tattered 16-month truce with Israel, a day after eight Palestinians were killed on a Gaza beach, apparently by an errant Israeli shell.” CNN went even further, explaining that “Hamas’ rocket attacks were prompted by a string of Israeli attacks, including an artillery shell blast that killed at least seven Palestinians picnicking on a northern Gaza beach on Friday.”

Just another brutal attack on civilians by the Israel Defense Forces? So we are invited to conclude. But the IDF, after initially apologizing and offering assistance to the families of those killed, has now investigated and concluded that the explosion was not caused by an Israeli shell. Full stop.

First, consider this elemental difference between Israel and the Palestinians: Israel apologizes and tries to make amends if its missiles go astray and kill civilians. The Palestinians, by contrast, aim at civilians and dance in the streets when they are killed.

The Israelis say the explosion on the beach may have been caused by a land mine placed there by Palestinians to thwart any Israeli assault, or possibly by unexploded ordnance from an earlier skirmish. According to the Israelis, shrapnel taken from the bodies of victims did not match Israeli shells but looked more like bomb fragments.

Another glaring missing ingredient to the media coverage is what happened before Israel fired on Gaza (Israel acknowledges aiming at terrorists in a different area of Gaza that day). In the 10 months since Israel withdrew from Gaza, some 1,000 missiles have been fired at Israel from Gaza. More than 800 have hit the country. Just in the month of May, more than 30 Qassam rockets were fired at Israel from the Gaza Strip. On May 21, a Qassam slammed into a classroom in Sderot — it was empty as the children were at synagogue. On May 16, a Katyusha landed in a farm. On May 31, four Qassams struck Sderot (Hamas has vowed to make that town of 20,000 into a graveyard). One hit an apartment building wounding two. On April 17, a suicide bomber killed 11 and wounded more than 70 when he exploded his bombs in a Tel Aviv cafe.

The world press, very much including the mainstream U.S. media, tends to take the word of Palestinian spokesmen about civilian deaths, although experience should have taught them by now to be more guarded. In 2005, a 10-year-old Palestinian girl was killed by gunfire. U.N. and Palestinian officials blamed her death on Israel until it was determined that a bullet fired by Palestinians shooting into the air to celebrate their pilgrimage to Mecca hit her. Muhammad al-Dura, the 12-year-old Palestinian boy supposedly shot by Israelis has become a worldwide symbol of Israeli brutality, though it has since been firmly established that Israelis could not and did not kill him. And, of course, the “Jenin Massacre” proclaimed by Palestinians high and low (5,000 innocents were slaughtered, they claimed) and condemned by the United Nations, turned out to be a complete lie (only 52 were killed, along with 23 Israeli soldiers who went house to house to avoid civilian casualties).

In the aftermath of the Gaza incident, Prime Minister Olmert spoke by phone with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. Annan demanded an explanation for the Gaza deaths. When Olmert asked why Annan had not shown similar concern about the scores of missiles hitting Israel, Annan was nonplussed. “What missiles?” he asked.

Two weeks ago, I was critical of those who leaped to conclusions about what happened at Haditha. It now looks as though news from Haditha may have been manipulated — just as news from the Palestinian territories routinely is. The western press falls for these scams again and again. Their credulity betrays their partiality and it dishonors them.

YES!!!YES!!!YES!!! God I hope the people of Georgia are smart enough to vote that ghetto ass bitch out of office!  

By Nathan Burchfiel
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
June 16, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A little known African American woman announced Thursday that she will try to unseat Georgia Democratic Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, who has been mired in controversy since she struck a U.S. Capitol policeman in the chest with her closed fist.

Catherine Davis, a human resources manager who has never held elected office, said she is running because McKinney’s “dismal legislative record and her outrageous behavior are an embarrassment to the hard-working folks in my district.” McKinney represents Georgia’s 4th Congressional District.

Davis is conservative. She favors a strict approach to immigration reform - the immediate securing of the borders and deportation of illegal residents, privatizing Social Security, Health Savings Accounts, school vouchers and the Fair Tax, which would eliminate the federal income tax and establish a federal sales tax.

McKinney was first elected to the U.S. House in 1992 to represent Georgia’s heavily Democratic 11th District. The district was redrawn by order of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1995 and McKinney was elected in the new, but still heavily Democratic 4th District in 1996. She lost her seat in 2002 when she was beaten in a Democratic primary, but when the winner then attempted a bid for the U.S. Senate in 2004, McKinney recaptured her old seat.

Davis said she believes the district is ready for change after the controversy that has swirled around McKinney.

FULL STORY

thewaronterrible said…
Sniffer, what are these schizoid thoughts of yours?
You can’t even correctly interpret or acknowledge the facts or information presented so the very foundation of your arguments are on shaky ground.
Then, like other conservatives, you replace the facts and information with straw men Liberals or straw men Liberal arguments that are easilly blown down with the slightest wind.

OLD ENTRY FROM MY OLD BLOG, YOU KNOW HOW MANY LIBERALS HAVE WRITTEN THE SAME TIRED STATEMENT. I WROTE THIS OVER A YEAR AGO! 

——————–